What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 90 (view)

What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist? Posted: 8/14/2009 11:18:27 PM
Sure you can provide evidence...but the most important piece of information is how you came up with that evidence....and in the case of Woody's fly by night calculation...I would just have to laugh... Well, from someone who has enjoyed P&T's BS show...you're right...sometimes they're just filling in bias with convenient opinion. But of course that's the issue, isn't it...when your research is watching television, rather than learning about the principles of the science, you can conveniently say "give me details of the study..." and so on... And you can say, in the face of some basic math, that you just laugh. But the fact is that a 'death predicting dream', with what I showed to be fairly conservative estimates (10 as a close family or loved one? Likely nearer 50-100), could happen about 1.5% of the time. That's about 5 times a year. Without any 'powers', you're going to have it happen 5 times a year..just from probability. Those five people, tell everyone they know (because it freaks them out, I'd do the same)...maybe 100-200 people for each of the five...probably a thousand people now have 'proof' of this power. If the thousand people tell a friend/etc..."I know this guy who dreamed..." That's 200,000 who have heard of this 'magical, spiritual power' occurring last year. In the last ten years...2 million people have direct contact with someone who experienced or knew a close family member/friend who experienced this. No wonder it's such a favourite story to tell. So laugh away, and remember...2009 is nearly 3/4 done. That's at least three people who have had the dream this year. This isn't a 'study' by the way...in case you're confused, this is a principle of mathematics. You absolutely should take their word for general scientific principles, including probability, statistics and things like the Law of Large Numbers.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 88 (view)

What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist? Posted: 8/14/2009 8:46:21 PM
The only thing that comes to mind for me is; His this true? Because if it is, then it makes me believe that his partner just showed some kind of psychic ability. A skeptic might say; ah yes but people die every night... Come on! Actually, what a skeptic would do is the following... Take the number people in North America (say 330,000,000). Guess at a reasonable approximation of how many people dream about a loved one dying (estimates vary, but let's say 10 distinct dreams per night and perhaps one in a thousand dreams are about a loved one dying.) That means 3,300,000 dreams of a loved one dying every night. Now, let's look at the odds of the loved one actually dying... On any given day, about 5000 die in the US. Assume though that of those five thousand, maybe 10 people knew them fairly well (well enough to consider them close family or friends). So...on any given day, there are 50,000 (5000 deaths X 10 people close to them) who will know someone fairly close to them, who will die the next day. And there are 3.3 million death dreams a night... 50,000 ________ = It's about 1.5% chance every night that this will happen in the US. 3,300,000 Law of large numbers...the assumptions may be wrong, that's not the point...the point is that the statistics of such a large population make even 1 in a million chances common place when looking at the whole.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 99 (view)

Can a White person be African American? Posted: 8/11/2009 11:00:42 PM
Goodness me, I'm starting to remember why I stopped reading these forums...ah well, in for a penny, in for a pound as my immigrant mother (British, goodness and mercy upon us, no, English...) would say. Re: Comment about Whites as a minority: And you have what facts to back this up? Demographic projections from almost any established source should do...and yes, historically, the idea of White versus Minority has assumed 50% plus one for founding father white being the bar for this. Re: Immigration You have to believe that America will correct its current immigration problem long before the country is over run. This current immigrant growth cannot, and will not, go on unchecked. You'll have to readjust your thinking here. Simply put, the labour force will not grow without immigration at existing or higher levels moving forward. This is, again, established, and the economy (for purposes of growth which will need to be very high given your country's debt) will need to increase its labour force in order to increase productivity in order to grow...which means, unless American-born folks f*ck more without concern about babies...you're gonna need immigration. Re: Affirmative Action. Don't think of it as race as in your skin colour. Think of it as race as in something you do in track and field. The purpose of affirmative action, in many respects, is to help those of equal ability but unequal circumstance have a chance to fairly run against the field. That means...given the historic and current social challenges that those in a position of poverty face, and given that those in poverty are much more likely to be of a non-white background...give the children in those circumstances the ability to come up to the starting line with an equal chance. To your thinking, everyone should be 'equal' at any stage of the application game, but the kid who struggled through poverty and slums and the street...worked his or her a$$ to the bone at a job to give money to his mum to pay rent, and then got a 75% average...should be ditched for someone who never had any of those challenges and got a 76% average? The idea behind affirmative action is to treat equally those who ran the race from the same starting line. Those who were lined up 20 yards back before they hit kindergarten, ought to be given some recognition of that fact.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 75 (view)

What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist? Posted: 8/11/2009 10:20:39 PM
I'll comment on the experiment, not astral projection which is just another 'flavour' of spiritual powers. The experiment he suggests is unrealistic, as you point out, because an ethics committee would never (rightly so) allow such a thing...however... It could be done. Take a set of mice, from birth...let them suckle until they are ready to eat on their own... And then put them in a cage where they can learn to choose between two doors for food. Decide what qualifies as intuitive, which is wholly impossible, as far as I can tell for humans, let alone mice but whatever... Then test them...one control group would be given a clue from a physical sense (say smell), and one door has the smell of food on it, one doesn't. If they go to the wrong door for the food (the one with no smell) then they aren't fed. Repeat. I guarantee you the mice will be fat and healthy and happy on day two. Take the experimental group...let them use their intuition...see how many live out the month. Experiment finished. and for god's sake... http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 72 (view)

What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist? Posted: 8/11/2009 9:49:40 PM
If you are going to totally dismiss that the cases cited in this article are from and with the police force, not the NOW retired investigator, then it doesn't matter what you read, you are going to say it says blue when it says red. I didn't expect any different. Some people NEVER admit they are wrong. I have the right to believe and you have the right to disbelieve, but be an adult and stop calling people stupid. Okay, I'll bite. First off though, let me assure you I'm not going to call you stupid. If it sounds as though I'm intimating it, apologies, but I'm really not. You're right, and have the right to believe whatever you would like, as Annette Martin has the right to free speech, and say whatever she likes... Who's Annette Martin? We'll get to that... You see, these 'spiritual' powers are often what adults believe are actual physical phenomena because of what they speak to, not what they accomplish. It's nice to think that we can read each others' minds, or are connected to people to know of their death (which is simple mathematics to explain the story of the women who dreams of a death in the family and then finds out it happened...laws of large numbers and all that, but nevermind). People want to believe it is true, and so will go to any length to ignore basic reality to further that belief. And some of these 'powers' do exist, it's just the reason they exist isn't 'spiritual'. The power of prayer, is a perfect example. It works, shown and proven in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. Patients who have people praying for them do better...with one caveat. They need to know they're being prayed for. Why is that important? Because the effect is the same as the sugar pill affect. Placebo. The mind can be a better doctor than doctors sometimes. So anyway...spiritual beliefs are just that...spiritual. They reside in a soul, or a mind, or whatever you want to call it as a set of faiths, and should not be confused with acts or abilities in the physical realm. Nor should people want them to be. Which brings us to Annette. She's the 'psychic' that helped the investigator in the article you quoted/linked. And she's made quite a business out of the one case that she is most famous for...that one she put a circle on a map and low and behold...a missing (dead) 71 year old man was found. But a few things on that case...from what I read, the lady in question asks many questions of the police officer, who gives her all manner of info, and some of that may very well made sense to her, enough for an educated guess on an area. Or she got lucky...lucky, I'm afraid, isn't spiritual power, unless you point to yourself immediately after and say "see? Spiritual power...that's me...". Others would have said "Wow, lucky break" and that's that. Another of her cases involved saying that a man would be arrested for a murder in another state wearing white...in about a year. And that happened. But what is never reported is how many other details did she give that were wrong (He'll be on a motorcycle, he has a beard, etc.). The wrong answers are conveniently forgotten, and the right ones pointed out...it's called retrofitting and very common. Studies have been done with criminal psychics and college students (the control). The psychics apparently will ask many more questions about a crime, but are right about the same amount of time. So, really, while I'm sort of debunking your pyschic, I'm not really, am I...but of course, I can't prove she isn't a psychic. You can't prove a negative (rhetoric 101) which those who point to single examples of sketchy detailed 'proof' will fall back on...I can't prove she isn't. As an aside (and as horrid as this will sound, it's just a means to make a point, I'm not accusing of anything)...you can't prove you've never had intimate relations with a goat. Sure, you can tell me you haven't, and you can probably account for a great amount of your time with witnesses and all that...but you can't prove you never have...and so there's the problem. You can't prove a negative. For the record, my personal belief is that you are as likely to be guilty of the above mentioned transgression as Annette or any other psychic possesses real 'spiritual' powers to catch crooks. I'm not (and frankly, while people will call things stupid or people stupid for that matter...) calling you unintelligent for believing this stuff...just misdirected and unaware of what 'proof' means in a modern, science-based reality. It's not an article in the San Francisco chronicle. Proof is repeatable, predictable and measurable. It is this very necessity of proof that makes spiritual beliefs an impossible match for it. In the world of the physical, that is to say, the world of you and I. There are unknowns in science but there is no 'fit' for the powers that are based on anything more than conjecture. To the people who point to the uncertainties of physics, and quanta (or multidimensional branes and string theory for that matter), you can 'fit' spiritual power in to those things but only based on an incomplete understanding of the scientific principles that went into their discovery. There is no scientist, no physicist nor any other formally trained scientist who has proven or published any kind of experimental or theoretical proof in an established scientific, peer-reviewed journal in the history of modern science of spiritual powers as they have been described here . For now, the San Francisco Chronicle, and occasional A&E specials, will have to suffice.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 83 (view)

Is it wrong to report / turn in illegal Aliens Posted: 4/7/2009 5:39:27 PM
Woodrow, you seem to be obsessed with the immigrant labor force here in America. No, but I have some knowledge of labour force issues, and enjoy setting the record straight, especially thinly veiled bigotry (from the the 'why don't they speak english' camp). Labor is a very minor part of the reasons why we should no longer allow illegals free reign of our country. Your economy is a major part of why you should not make such overblown, inaccurate and frankly, silly overstatements about what an impact illegal immigration has in your country. You can sit thousands of miles away I'm in Canada...about 50 miles from your country... & arrogantly quote statistics & articles from newspapers I prefer the term 'facts' and 'trustworthy sources' but, okay, I'll give you slightly arrogant... but until you are in the middle of the situation you can not truly understand what the reality is. Toronto, Canada is considered the world's most diverse city...it's got a fair share of illegal immigration. I recently read an article written by one of your governments officials, he basically told foreigners to go home they were not welcome & Canada was not going to bend & change rules to accommodate them. Really? This has not made any of the Canadian newspapers...we're hearing much about keeping our immigration numbers at the same levels, and that immigration is a necessity for economic health...at least that's what the federal minister in charge of immigration was saying...I'm not saying I don't believe you...oh, sorry...unless you can be specific of this 'official'...I am saying that. They were not going to give up their jobs, nor allow them to invade their health care, nor their schools nor take advantage of any resourses that rightfully belonged to the citizens of Canada. I wish I would have kept the article I would love to quote it here. Me too. Google maybe? How extensive is your Canadian government media scan? It must be extensive to have forgotten which source we're talking about here... He stood up & applied the NIMBY rule in a very positive/ forceful way. No he didn't. See above - NIMBY is a concept you need to do a bit of review of...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 82 (view)

Is it wrong to report / turn in illegal Aliens Posted: 4/7/2009 5:28:32 PM
Wow now that is really intensive & thought provoking. Sheat, I hope you didn't injure yourself coming up with that. You must be one of those that are not affected by illegals so you have the NIMBY solution. NIMBY-not in my back yard, so it doesn't concern me. How very sad to be so shallow & impassive with absolutely no concern for your fellow Americans. To think the big problems with illegals all centers around Spanish billboards is absolutely ludacris. You should be embarrassed to have made such a remark for all the world to see. You & people like you with the "who cares" attitude is why the world is in the shape it is in today. Two things...first is that being on a border town in Texas, your experiences are not a fair representation of the net worth of immigration. But, let's not blame illegals from mexico for what is apparently a lack of infrastructure put in place by your federal or state governments. On that point, Texas appears to be one of the better positioned states weathering the economic storm ( from one year ago http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2008/swe0804c.cfm ) . Why? Well, agriculture, energy and...population growth. Secondly...are you seriously making fun of someone's intellect and thoughts and then in the same sentence entirely misunderstand what NIMBY means? You're not...surely... NIMBY the acronym stands for "Not In My Back Yard" but it does not mean "it's not in my backyard so it doesn't concern me". It means - objection to the establishment in one's neighborhood of projects, such as incinerators, prisons, or homeless shelters, that are believed to be dangerous, unsightly, or otherwise undesirable. Your take on it is about opposite, which holds some irony considering in the same sentence you're making fun of someone's intellect. There's also a secondary irony, being that I'm sure you're happy to have the economy improve, but don't want to deal with immigration issues in your backyard (as immigration is necessary for economic growth)... which is NIMBY reaction. Oh, and on this rampant influx of contagious, disease-ridden illegal aliens...you're spreading the Lou Dobbs version of life, I'm guessing? It's not true. Believe me, after spelling "contagious" correctly, and then googling PAST the right wing hate sites...it turns out that in the entire country there are about 200-250 cases of leprosy per year. The US Center for Disease control has reported that the number peaked in 1985 (360) and has declined ever since... Of course, some diseases are more prevalent with immigrant populations but your cross the board assertions about their medical histories and so forth are ridiculous. If you can reference any reputable source on those assertions, please do; otherwise...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 79 (view)

Is it wrong to report / turn in illegal Aliens Posted: 4/7/2009 4:29:18 PM
Sigh...well, now I'm starting to remember why this forum thing was a bit of a time suck...ah well... Let me point out the fallacies in the above quotes. They are so glaring that I should not have to point them out but I will. The first fallacy is that Illegals are being hired that employers cannot find legal citizens to do. This is patently false. Many industries that used to provide good workable wages are being demolished by the influx of Illegals. It is a little bit amusing to be told how wrong I am, and then in the same breath, have the person agree with me. Let me be clear here...when I said that businesses hire cheaper labour to keep costs down and therefore remain competitive in the market...that's why they hire cheaper illegal work. Which, if you will notice, is pretty much what you said AFTER saying my point was patently false. Manufacturing's total crash is not even remotely the fault of illegal aliens. It's the fault of a global economy that can get manufacturing work done more cheaply in other countries. Period. Your lamenting its exit is perfectly legit. Your blaming its exodus from American soil on illegal labour is ridiculous. Suggesting the nation's young men and women can't find summer or part-time jobs is also ridiculous. The ease in which it happens depends on the economy...which, by the way, is the same economy that in a large part depends on immigration (both legal and otherwise). The biggest fallacy of all in your post is that "Illegals are hired to provide the lowest cost to you". That is completely false and laughable. Yes, yes, business looks to profits for its bottom line...of course. But labour costs are a variable as are every other thing in a business setting...energy costs have gone up, in a big way, costs of raw materials (like timber, or ingredients, or any other supplier industry that also uses illegals for the sh!tty manual labour work) has gone up...and our inflation (over the last ten years) has remained fairly constant/low for many of the services/products we purchase. Why? I'm sure you can guess. Really? Are we not capable of handling the additional labor needs with our own indigenous population growth? Yes. Really. And no, America's birth rate is not sufficient to meet the needs of labour force growth. There is no proof that we need this additional resource. Quite frankly we have too many citizens out of work to be able to justify this statement in any way. Sigh. Yes there is. Plenty of proof, this has been a demographic statistical reality predicted for years. Quite frankly, I'm doubtful that the citizens laid off from the meat packing plant or auto assembly line are going to be retraining as pediatricians, nurses, mechanical engineers, or any of the other highly skilled jobs that are and will be required. So...with this insistence of 'proof' in mind (which I know, you will barely bother to read and simply refute as being a liberal BS propaganda exercise...) Population estimates indicate that immigrants will generate all net labor force growth in the next twenty years because the size of the native-born population between the prime working ages of 25-54 will not grow. The baby boomer generation and presence of women in the workforce expanded the size of the workforce in past decades; low fertility rates mean that expansion of the native-born workforce is unlikely within the next 20-30 years... http://www.ncsl.org/programs/immig/immigworkforce.htm NY Times - Outlines overall economic benefits for immigrants (even on construction sites) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20immig.html

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 54 (view)

Is it wrong to report / turn in illegal Aliens Posted: 4/6/2009 9:04:47 PM
Just being nosy...how do they do that? If they aren't on record legally anywhere...I'm just asking..... Not being nosy at all...many illegals have jobs with small to medium size firms that have them on file and deduct federal/state/soc.sec. deductions right at the source. The majority do this, not because they choose to, but they just have it done for them. Many also voluntarily file their tax returns, often with their real information and a special status for those ineligible to do so...Massachusetts is one state where this is happening in record numbers...the illegals hope this is one way to build a case for them to become legal. Keep in mind also that laws have been enacted that prevent illegals from getting any kind of government 'welfare' with the exception of emergency medical care and K-12 education. The numbers can vary, but there are a number of ways to track who pays into Social Security, Medicare and fed/state taxes...66-75% of illegals do, without any hope of accessing the programs that this money goes into. Also, don't forget state sales tax. For every purchase, that is contributing into a government system they often are barred from accessing... The numbers, all in all, do not make for a great deal of illegals 'taking' out more than they put in. While everyone will have their anecdotes, taken over the whole picture, and taken with the mind that this workforce is a necessary part of the economic engine...illegals are a net gain, just as legal immigrants are a net gain.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 51 (view)

Is it wrong to report / turn in illegal Aliens Posted: 4/6/2009 7:17:27 PM
Hmmn...been a while since I've posted on here...but, what the hell... Illegal immigration is more than people simply taking advantage of the charity of a country...in many cases there are some important factors to remember. 1. They are essential to many small and medium size employers. There's a reason why they're coming, they're being hired. They're being hired to do work that, most likely, employers are unable to find 'legals' to do. 2. If they could find 'legals' to do it and choose to employ illegals...then they're doing it for you. As a consumer, the price which you pay for goods (including construction and trades services, restaurant meals, fresh fruit/veg at the grocery) depends on the labour available. It's all very well and good to say "Buy USA" and then bugger off to Walmart's Made in China stuff... Illegals are hired to provide the lowest cost to you. So, like it or not, illegals are essential to the economy. Immigration generally is essential to the economy (no matter what their primary language is) and labour force growth will be nearly completely due to immigration in a few years. That's reality, and if you want to recover from the economic disaster, you will need to attract a whole lot of immigration. Illegal immigration will be a portion of that. As to children of illegals going to school? Thank your lucky stars. Let's forget about the fact to suggest otherwise is barbaric treatment of a child who's only sin is to have parents looking for a better life...there is a good business case to do so. As said above...labour force growth is why you need immigration...these kids are more likely than not to be contributing someday. But the fact is that the claim of freeloading isn't accurate. It's estimated that about 75% pay taxes (state and federal)...and about 7 Billion a year into social security (which they will never access)...never mind sales tax or the fact that they contribute to the economy through housing/costs of living etc. Some folks seem to show that on the cost of government services versus tax/contributions...illegals put in more than they take out, and if they don't, the difference is negligible. So...it's US business that encourages illegal aliens...because they need to lower costs so that the consumers (you guys) purchase from them rather than elsewhere, and the illegals do work that often no one else wants to do, for wages that they pay taxes for and contribute in a number of ways that, overall, makes a huge difference... But...sorry...you sometimes have to deal with a 'dial 1 for english' issue. Right. Sorry...forget about what I just said...slam the door shut...I totally hate having to hit a number on the phone...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 22 (view)

Global warming will devastate economy: report Posted: 10/31/2006 8:30:29 PM
Hey man, yeah, don't get me started on the Alberta thing... Let's be clear, Canada is as bad (or worse) in its environmental record as the united states. What's worse, as a smaller country, it should be easier to fix than the US. The oil sands are the west's cash cow...and no one in our government wants to mess with that. There are many (including me) who feel that if there isn't a reasonable way to extract that oil in an environmentally sound way, it shouldn't be produced. Unfortunately, that's gonna be a long time coming without regulations from government and a higher price of gas. There is the technology out there to do it, you're right. What it will take is punishing companies with $$$ who do not spend the money to outfit properly. For example, in the US many construction companies who use diesel have been buying a new catalitic converter that reduces emissions by 90%. California especially is buying them, because, while expensive at first, in that state it's the law. It's a Canadian company that owns the tech...they sell 99% of their products to the US. Sigh. Environmental health, pollution etc...it can not be self-regulated by industry. It needs to be held accountable to laws, and laws that can be and are enforced. When this is done, by the way, the spin off money from the tech to do it usually makes up for the extra costs of buying it by a magnitude of 100s. But try telling that to the oil and energy execs. And, oh, if he does ask...do us a favour and tell him Edmonton is a little village outside Baghdad...he'll never know the difference, and I doubt he'll check.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 7 (view)

The Dollar's Full-System Meltdown Posted: 10/31/2006 8:22:34 PM
Well, I think we're leaning slightly past the 'paranoid' level, with some of the 'cause and effect' stuff there...but the problem is the U.S. debt. It's a problem that for the past 6 years has been largely ignored (I remember Clinton was running a surplus, I think the last couple years of his administration, and not to put this in to 'left vs right' but...) The debt that America has as a country is staggering. And to pay it off, it will require one of two things to occur...a drastic change in where current revenue is spent or a drastic raising of revenue generation. In other words, cuts or taxes. Now you can cut the military by a few hundred billion a year...stop invading countries, for example, as a quick primer on how to do that...you could cut state transfers and medicare etc. But that will be a 'temporary' fix, for a larger problem. You will raise taxes. My guess is that it will be mostly corporate, and that the US will download much more onto states. You will need to tax the wealthy...the inequity in tax revenues in the U.S. is ridiculous...when you cut income taxes (wealthy benefit, poor and middle class suffer) and push those cuts into reduction of services for education, healthcare and unemployment...you're making the problem worse, not better. Essentially though, it boggles the mind that this is not an issue in the electorate more. I am curious, but sadly, I'm guessing the answer is that the electorate don't care and would not vote for anyone who suggested they needed to either cut spending or raise taxes. Until they have to... Oh, but for the question about the 100K...don't worry. If you're playing the currency exchange, you know that you don't want US dollars. If you're going to be using that as savings, you're not affected yet. Inflation is not a problem, that 100K buys just as much in the US as it did yesterday. If you want to play currency exchange...the Euro, Yen and Canadian dollar seem fairly decent lately.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 18 (view)

Global warming will devastate economy: report Posted: 10/31/2006 7:56:44 PM
Sigh... Hiya Paul. This is mainly aimed at you, as you seem to be taking up the 'woe is the U.S. and all who pick on her' side on this one... First. It's 'Gorbachev'. While I'm not sure what your point is about him, let's assume for a moment that the liklihood of his being the rosetta stone for clarity on this issue...is small when the guy referring folks to him can't spell his name right. Secondly. Kyoto has 'exceptions' to its requirements...those who aren't signatories. That would be the US...and India and China, I believe are the others. For those who have signed, like Canada, many are not meeting the emissions reducing goals. The United States...one of the largest energy consumers on the planet, haven't signed up...because it would end up making gas cost more. Period. It would end up being expensive and you'd have a gallon of gas going for 4-6 bucks. Kinda like it is in Europe, for example. Simply put, it has not got stricter standards for the U.S. or any western country. It is asking the countries to reduce their emissions to what amounts to the levels they had in 1990. Developing countries, by the way, are often worse polluters than anyone else, because they're still using coal etc. much more. But you knew that, didn't ya, brother... People are p!ssed that the U.S. is not signing it for the following reasons: 1. the US is the richest country in the world, in many respects, and crying poor about how much it would cost its citizens (an extra fifty bucks a week to fill their SUVs) is a bit offensive to the rest of the world who recognize the need to reduce greenhouse gas and are doing so on the backs of their much less well off citizens. 2. The government of the U.S. trumpets studies about how global warming isn't happening, and is not caused by man-made industry. The rest of the world, when it does basic research and finds out that these studies are funded and often carried out by oil companies, tends to view this as, well, at best stupid and at worst...criminal. Let's not even get into the fact that it's hard to really pay attention to the U.S. government trumpeting the 'sciences' at all when its leader believes the earth was created by god, in a day, and that dinosaurs and humans walked the planet at the same time. 3. After d!cking around with this issue for years, as more and more studies are produced by reputable scientists beholden only to the pursuit of knowledge (rather than, say, a share price)...the U.K. produces an economists report of the potential costs...and whoops. We're talking about it again. And they're still not going to sign. But here's why we're not mad... 1. Countries that have signed, in the western world, are almost all woefully behind in their work and are not going to meet targets. Even if your government had made a half hearted signature on the thing, assuming George W. had a crayon colour he liked and managed to sign his name correctly...the US would be just as woefully behind. 2. Your country is suddenly clueing into the fact that the republicans are dangerous. We're looking forward to a balance in the senate and congress. We're REALLY looking forward to Obama in 2008 (at least, we're hopeful). 3. Your gas will go up. The rest of the world is working on patents for cleaner energy solutions (and frankly, gobbling up patents that your citizens will pay through the teeth to use in a few years, which would likely have been avoided had you put more money into green energy) and SUVs will become a memory like the boats you drove in the seventies. You will be inheriting a crushing debt repayment problem that will make your economy almost entirely dependent on importing energy and energy solutions. Given that you'll be forced to pay market rates at that time, it will likely all even out. The report that has just come out, as an aside, outlines the many variables that we're already seeing in our weather and environmental patterns. It predicts costs...some that will affect North America directly (rising sea levels, more devastating climate 'anomalies') and otheres indirectly (hundreds of millions of displaced refugees from the poorest parts of the world). If only 10% of the possible costs come through to appear on our radars...that holds enough financial wallop that it will be necessary for every country to spend .1% of its GDP on climate change. That's the estimate. The US is currently spending 4% of its GDP on the military. Not including the 400 billion Iraq is costing. If it reduced that by .1%...it would do a world of good...literally. In the event that your nation manages to extricate itself from the quagmire it has in Iraq, and let's the world hopefully rebuild there (although no one's really getting their hopes up on that front)...if the US government spent that amount of money on green energy solutions and improving emissions/greenhouse gas reductions...it would likely solve the problem. Which is both a reason for the world to be mad at the US but also a reason for hope. So vote early, vote often, but most importantly...for chr!ssakes, vote democrat.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 111 (view)

democrats are weak. why? Posted: 10/2/2006 9:28:21 PM
This is a really good debate to have, and one that goes on continually outside of the U.S. Let me start by making myself clear...the blame for GWB being in power rests solely in the hands of the Democratic party, not the Republican party, as near as I can tell. The first term was a throw up, who knew...whatever. The second? A strategic failure of monstrous proportions. But the fact is that the democratic party is faced with one of two choices every election day. 1. You try to get every damned voter to vote for you. To do this, you make yourself a vanilla version of what the republicans offer and hope it is enough to swing tons of votes to you. You believe in a woman's right to choose, and that homosexuality (while not for you) is a human rights issue and one that you're not interested in making political. You believe that solid fiscal policy is based on spending money and getting that money from a fair tax system. You know that the USA may be the only superpower left but that without global cooperation and delicate foreign affairs work, this is an irrelevant point that is good for 'USA is #1' rallies, but little else. You believe that industry needs regulation and without it the lower and middle class will suffer. BUT. You never talk about these things. You talk about the war, and america's need to be tough and crime and blah blah blah. 2. You know you're not getting 20-40% of the vote. These are essentially hard core right wingers plus evangelical Christians (who, strangely enough, lean towards left wing values except in abortion and jesus in the school system...near as I can tell). You ignore them. You focus on the undecided and the ones that are your strength. You hit back at false portrayals of you or your party's values and you get tough in the trenches to show those who haven't made up their mind that there is a choice. Democrats chose option one. Again. They're wrong to do so. Thank god that the current republican ejits have managed to be SO incredibly incompetent. They'll get voted out of power in the house not because of democratic party strategy, but because of incompetence from the competition. The problem is, quite frankly, that the voter turn out in the united states is abysmal. Those that do turn out, are often entirely unprepared to understand what the consequences are of their vote. I understand that sounds horrible...but I'm not just slagging the states, it's the same here in Canada and I'm sure in other western countries. People do not, on average, understand basic economics 101, or international policy...or even out and out lies. The fact that Bush claimed Iraq was tied to 9/11 as part of the business case to get the war started...and this is not haunting him every day (since it was a bald faced lie) in the polls and in the republican reelection efforts...is astounding. Why are the democrats weak? Bad strategy. An ignorant electorate (sorry, I don't mean here, but I mean generally). And a candidate who believes that policy wins elections. Personality does. That is, as an aside, why the world is in such a bad place sometimes. It SHOULD be that policy wins elections, not personality. But it isn't. It's this naivette on the part of the dems that is their problem from where I sit.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 131 (view)

BRITS, AMERICANS and CANADIANS.....ARE YOU LISTENING? This is Leadership Posted: 9/5/2006 5:03:37 PM
It's been pointed out a couple of times now, but the whole issue of the Aussie article is kind of old news. In Canada, specifically Ontario, this issue was dealt with. The way it was dealt with was especially interesting, as a government said on the one hand that it would allow Sharia to be part of the justice system and then backtracked big time after. Why? Because originally they were talking about implementing a system that other religious and cultural groups already had (Jewish etc.) and the Muslim community (or at least some in it) felt that they ought to have the same freedoms as other Canadians of different ethnic/religious background. And technically, they should. No one religion gets special advantages in Canada (or in the U.S. or in Australia, technically under their constitution). But...Sharia law includes a number of potential outcomes that fly in the face of what would be considered human rights, as the verdicts, if you can call them that, are for some extremist muslim clerics, oh, about 500 years behind the times. And, it was pointed out, family pressure exerted on individuals could force them to accept Sharia, when really they don't want to or shouldn't. So... The Ontario Government said 'we've made a mistake and we're going to remove this option for all religious groups'. Now, this caused all manner of fuss, as you can imagine, but in the end the right decision was made... Now the difference...there was none of the 'if you're a fundamentalist muslim, get the hell out' talk that really accomplishes nothing but to polarize people. Australia, in their treatment of immigrants, aboriginals, and other ethnic issues does not have a great record (neither does Canada or U.S. but in some ways, the degree of anti-immigrant/anti-aboriginal policy by Australia is worse and more recent). They're getting a bit better, but this does not help their reputation, in my mind. Finally. To the point about "Women and blacks are Americans" and similar thoughts put out here...The immigrant muslims both in Australia and Canada and America are citizens. They have every right that any white, black, man, woman or any other citizen have. Whether you were born in the country or immigrated, if you're a citizen, you have the same rights to want to change the laws, or to support the laws. 100% equal. Just be clear on that, as the assumed inequality people sometimes have towards citizens who weren't born here...is misguided, counterproductive and just plain wrong. Finally...to sort out a few points that have been mentioned and fall into the 'whoops, you're way wrong' category. No one has the right to come into this country and break our laws and try to change our way of life to suit themselves. They should learn to speak the language of the land,or learn it, which is english. They don't have the right to 'break' the law...but they have the right to try and change them. They do not need to learn English, although it would be easier for their integration if they did, at least by not learning it they don't have to listen to people moan about their accents as they try to speak. ...to try to force other countries to Islam is a NO,NO.We have terrorist cells in this country(stated by the S.O.Defence on Fox T.V.) No one is forcing other countries to Islam, promise. Quoting Fox news...that's a NO NO. And quoting Rumsfeld, unless for a laugh, is likely a no-no too. This guy is so backwards he managed to get 6 former Army generals to publically call for his resignation. That NEVER happens. And for the record, America has no official language. Never has. And for the few people who are calling about about 'learn the language or go home...' or other similar bile...here's a bit of a sobering thought for you. From - National Institute of Literacy, in the late nineties. According to a recent US government report, The State of Literacy in America, released by the National Institute for Literacy (NIL), there has been a significant growth in illiteracy in America. Over 90 million US adults, nearly one out of two, are functionally illiterate or near illiterate, without the minimum skills required in a modern society. Out of 191 million adults in the US, as many as 44 million cannot read a newspaper or fill out a job application. Another 50 million more cannot read or comprehend above the eighth grade level. I think that it's safe to say, people with glass dictionaries...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 40 (view)

New British Film Posted: 9/4/2006 9:03:10 PM
I think the film did just what its makers wanted it to do when they made it. Attract attention. For those that would say it's in bad taste, well, yes, I suppose to some it is. Others? Not at all. Others still? Could care less. Because taste, thankfully, is an entirely personal thing and if we're going to stop the public release of works of art simply because some find it distasteful, well, that's a worrying day indeed. What level of taste is the limit? Pat Robertson? Madonna? The thing about something like this is that the fact that it p!sses off so many people that the film is even made is exactly the reason why so many people will want to see it. I suspect it's a quite well made film. The Toronto Film Festival is known for its judges and they don't just put things up there simply because it's shocking. I may be wrong, actually, I think once they put an early Mel Gibson film he directed up there, The Passion of the Anti-Semite, where a young roman catholic altar boy is congratulated for his defiling of a synagogue by his parish priest. There are a few 'touching' scenes there, as you can imagine... But I digress. These films are expressions of artistic freedom, and to say that the land of the free would 'ban' a film simply because it touches on a topic they feel is, in poor taste? Dangerous? Dangerous how? The president is no more or less in danger by this movie, and there are action movies about this topic that are much more showing of "how" the bad guy does it...but then Cuba Gooding Jr. gets to the bottom of it in the end...and so everyone's happy. Art, and film is art, good or bad, presents to us not only an idea of how the world is, but forces us to think about that idea and allows our imaginations to flex a bit more than it had been able to do before. That's what is beautiful, and ugly, about art. When it challenges our ideas of taste, or beauty, or thought, we are better people whether we agree or not and our society as a whole grows because yet another idea has been expressed. As far as I can see, for the record, the idea of this film is more to examine the people of the U.S. than it is to look at the man himself or the presidency. Is this right? Of course it is. It's a film. The question of whether it's 'good' is pointless, as the measure for that is personal, and one person's 'good' is another's "oh, my god, why did they let Paris Hilton sing..." That's the way it goes. George W. Bush is to good government what Paris Hilton is to progressive pop-rock. To think this film does anything but use that fact as a starting point for an idea they want to explore though, is foolish...and short sighted. Let art breathe, it won't hurt you. The thing is, being shocked about art is harder and harder to do...people push the envelope and if they can push your buttons as they do it, then that's even better.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 64 (view)

Crocodile Hunter gets killed Posted: 9/4/2006 8:31:10 PM
You know, I'm going to get the callous a$$ of the year award for this, and I really feel for his poor family and all... But the man was not responsible. He was continuously handling very dangerous animals in a way that was not only putting his (and occasionally others' lives in danger) but was also considered to be harmful to the animals themselves in the way he did it. The feeding a croc while holding his child is bad enough, but there are other examples. Was he dedicated to wildlife and endangered species? Yes. Was he going about raising awareness in a way that got the attention of many people...sure. But his show and his science were misinformed, his treatment of many animals p!ssed off scientists in the field (his show in antartica got him major trouble for what amounted to his sacrificing the health/welfare of the wildlife for a good shot). And here? He died due what amounts to an irresponsible act in the water with what is usually a very docile species. Cameraman is in water in front of animal...he's over it...animal feels cornered and that's that...tragedy. Which ANY responsible person should have realized was possible. When interviewed about why it was safe for HIM (not others, he'd say, mind you but him) to do this unsafe stuff...he said it was 100% instinct. Well, here we see...live by the instinct.... What makes me upset is that there are two more fatherless children in the world tonight, that wouldn't be if he'd not been quite so cavalier about the world of nature. So I'm a little hesitant to put hero status on this guy. He raised awareness, but didn't do so through science or through sustainable conservation information...he did so by a thrill ride, with wild animals who had no script and in fact, acted just as they should.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 23 (view)

atheism vs. christianity Posted: 8/2/2006 8:46:49 PM
You can chose to not believe, but all I have to say is what have I got to lose if I am wrong vs what you have to lose if you are wrong? If I am wrong, I will just rot in the ground, if you are wrong, it could be an eternity in Hell.... The choice is yours, I choose life. Not to use scare tactics, but it really is a matter of eternal salvation vs eternal damnation. Oh, that is rich. Um, I'm thinking you're making a bit of an iffy assumption there...as if it's a fifty-fifty proposition between Christianity and Atheism. I mean, technically, if it ends up we're meeting Allah and the muslims have it right...well, we're both gonna be thinking this latest heat wave is a Christmas tour in Anchorage. What do you have to lose? Well, a lifetime of NOT living in certain ways. A lifetime of not experiencing things, or judging the actions or behaviours of others...instead of trying them or at least embracing their choices to do what they wish. And let's be clear...your 'scare' tactics...are only really valid for you. The prospect of hell isn't really a big deal for someone who doesn't believe in its existence. For the record, that's not just athiests...jews also kinda don't believe in the hellfire thing...it's why every time you folks go into your 'jews for jesus' or warning of the Revellations...since jews don't buy it, the endtimes aren't really a going concern. They appreciate all the money and guns from the very christian American government...but that's it. But you seem to be saying 'hey, better safe than sorry...' And if you're gonna do that, you best at least lay a small wager on the other major religions as well. Throw a fiver down on the jews...get a rabbi there on the deathbed, just to be sure Yaweh ain't pissed you missed Hannekah all these years. Oh, and fiver on the muslim faith. And let's be clear here, the protestants think the catholics are sinners and the catholics? Sheesh...catholics think EVERY other christian sect is going to hell. Except United. They think United church goers are going to hell...they just refuse to acknowledge they're even christian. So fivers on the Catholics, the protestants and what the hell...united too. Oh, and let's hear it for Nirvana. The buddhists...ooh baby the budhists. And sikhs. Wiccans? Actually, nah, they'd just blow the five bucks on weed. Anyway, you see what I'm saying...your scare tactics aren't really as worrisome for people who haven't spent a lifetime of having hellfire scare tactics burned into their subconscious. For you it gives you the willies...the rest of us? A cute fable with a scary ending that is meant to make the children behave.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 56 (view)

I'm not easily offended but... Posted: 6/18/2006 10:18:47 PM
Um...well, this does seem a bit of a red herring post generally... It's shocking, ridiculous and entirely deserving of contempt...these people in the Netherlands who are pro-paedophillia. Absolutely. But to be upset that they formed a political party? Well, hell, that's a right groups have in many democracies...like Netherlands, or Canada, or yes, the United States. In fact, you can start a political party for issues that are illegal. In the U.S., 10 states have a US Marijuana Party...totally okay to do this...they just get next to no votes...as will this one. They WILL stir up debate, and make the issue more prevalent...and one hopes, have this debate lead to firmer controls and better protections for children. But the fact remains, that you can start any party you want to in the USA or Canada...hell, there's a Nazi party in the US...and the Family Values party started because at 2am, Christmas 1994, god apparently woke their leader up and told him to start it up... Democracy in action. Oh, and we need to clear up some pretty blatent mis-information really quickly... Someone suggested the APA published a study about how pedophillia might be good for kids in some cases...or some equally ridiculous statement. someone asked for a link to this APA study...and the link was provided. http://www.ipce.info ipce is not the APA. It's a pedophillia advocacy group. Adding that link is a bit sneaky, I'd say, as the study itself has nothing to do with the APA (who in fact denounced the study. To be clear, it was not endorsed by the APA. It was a mistake, the study got through a peer review into a journal when it shouldn't have...the results widely critisized but to say this is an indication the APA is supportive or agrees with the findings...is simply not true.) Now, in addition, there seems to be occasional hints that homosexuality is predictive of pedophillia...which is again, false. To be clear, child abuse by homosexuals is no more likely than by heterosexuals. Let's just say this...Kinsey? Well, read for yourself if you'd like an overview of his life, and controversy...it's a good start at least, and better than the picture you get here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey The real thing that he 'did' was have homosexuality removed from the books as a psychological illness. This, by the way, p!sses off the Christian right and tends to lead to attacks on his work and life. Oh, and 'deviant' in terms of sexual practices simply means, speaking of the dictionary meaning of the word , as 'differing from the norm'. In other words, technically, saving your virginity for marriage is sexual deviancy too, these days, as it's not the norm. And when we're dealing with quotes from many and varied sources, including advocacy groups for pedophillia, to back up a claim that makes it seem like the APA actually DID a study saying it was okay...source checking is important. So for 'news' of APA trying to say pedophiles are normal..we are given a link. To the APA site? They have one, and they're pretty up front about things... No. To a major news resource? After all, something like that...you'd bet your boots CNN and so on would be all over it... No. We are linked to CNSNews.com Their motto? The "RIGHT" news. "RIGHT" now. (capitals and quotes are mine). Think maybe they might, have a bias...RIGHT? You think perhaps they'd be trusted for the RIGHT info? Oh...wait...in small text...It says CNSNews.com is a division of the media research centre... "http://www.mediaresearch.org/" Check 'em out...here are some other headlines they had...in their quest for the "right" news... - WashPost Finds Md. Governor 'Centrist' For Pandering to Gay Left - The Trashing of the Christ NBC, ABC, CBS Promote Da Vinci Code but Trashed The Passion - Memories of Katie’s Dramatic Liberal Bias - Coulter’s Media Critics are Moral, Editorial Hypocrites and so on... Just what you want to have for an impartial 'source'...right? More impartial sources...or at least...useless ones...some from a student at MTSU...That would be "Middle Tennessee State University" for those of you unfamilliar with this bastion of human psychology research and academe... The quote I liked (putting aside this is an undergrad student's silly little home page...not exactly lexis-nexus)...was that since Feb 20, 1996...the site's had 1531 visitors... Maybe you can be 1532...go visit Ben's site... http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/ Oh, and another thing...http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig for another insight on science... Here's the intro to this guy's page... A research project done by Peter-R. Koenig A detailed historical field research on the psycho-sociology of a modern secret society called Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.). All about modern day occultism and money; so-called Templars and falsification of history; Gnostics in the kitchen + bedrooms and their "expanded" consciousness; Illuminati and conspiracy; NeuRosicrucians; religious liberty and sexmagick; their relation with Voodoo and Freemasonry; rituals, correspondences, books and articles. Again, here we have skipped all that mumbo jumbo by the 'mainstream' and got to someone who knows his sh!t...I'm just hoping Peter can clear up that 'sexmagick' issue for us too...as it sounds like fun to me.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 21 (view)

American Businees in INDIA Posted: 8/14/2005 5:33:25 PM
As an aside, Until the U.S. economy identifies tens of thousands of pure of blood and heart Americans who want to stand in a field at 100F for twelve hours picking grapes/oranges/whatever for two months of a year for what amounts to probably 1/10th of minimum wage...I think this particular labour force demographic is unlikely to be a big influence on things generally for lower and middle class america... In other words, illegal immigrants do the work that American workers do not want to do. This is not an example of taking jobs away from americans, rather it is a way for you to buy produce in your supermarket at prices that are probably ten to fifteen cents less expensive per pound. Money saved that you may use to buy stamps to write your congressmen and congresswomen about any number of red herrings. Just a thought mind you, just a thought.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 19 (view)

American Businees in INDIA Posted: 8/14/2005 4:56:08 PM
Oh, goodness, against all my better instincts, here I am again in Current Events... The issue of businesses sending out their external work to the lowest cost option (in this case India, but ask Nike about their sweat shops in Central America or any number of other examples) is not the fault of either the corporation in question or, and this is laughable, government making conditions more attractive. Let's get the government option done with first. The reason that the corporations do this is because of the labour cost of producing said 'service' or product in a western country. To make it more attractive, the government would have to make union laws disappear and let minimum wage get to a low enough point that they are in competition. Pure and simple that's all. This would create a level of income that Americans, in this case, could not live on with the cost of living here (a cost of living they've come to expect by having unions and wages rise to meet inflation) and so the jobs would go vacant (until taken by perhaps an illegal immigrant or two, but let's leave that one for another day, shall we?). Corporations work purely on the maximizing of profits for their shareholders. They could give a sht about americans, even if they're so called 'american' companies. All they want is money, period. The consumers, in a desperate neverending quest to find the cheapest product for themselves, force quality to go down. That five hundred dollar plane ticket would cost perhaps $700 were it any different. When you go for the lowest price, you get generally the poorest quality. To answer the question of Honeyko about why the 'government' allows their workforce to be horse manure in the eyes of employers, it's a mistake to think that way. All they have done is make the workers highly paid in a country that has a high standard of living. Americans get jobs in companies where the intellectual capital the workers offer is higher than the savings they would have by going elsewhere. It is also, just as a little aside, why Canada is occasionally more attractive for certain companies where knowledge and information is the currency used...Canada may have higher corporate taxes, but the cost is lower when medical insurance is removed, plus the workforce is considered better educated and the standard of living higher than in most U.S. urban centres. It's purely about the bottom line though, always. Ever wonder why Wal-Mart gets the shoppers every day? Is it because they can compete with the local hardware store in terms of quality or customer service? Of course not, it's because they buy their products from overseas (often China or sweatshops from the world over) and can undersell without offering quality or service. And consumers buy. A lot. Before you go blaming your government or even that company that has zero customer service, ask yourself what made the decision for you to purchase that particular product at that particular time. It's almost entirely going to be price. This attitude, and the corporation's desperate need to earn profit is what makes quality and customer service so useless these days. You get what you pay for and we as consumers have, over and over, made the choice that price comes first, and quality a far second. For those who think this is a problem of the 'Give us our jobs back', the solution is very simple. You have to be qualified to do the work that is needed, and you have to be willing to work for less money than they do in other countries. So, for the India call centre, that might mean you're willing to work for maybe 10K per year. Up until the point where the country finds out that in Honduras, a call centre worker will work for 8K a year, then you'll need to work for that...and so on. Corporations don't care about anything other than money. The solution? Well there may not be one. You need corporate law to change and you need international agreements between countries to support these laws internationally. Now, I'm going to take a moment and put to rest some of the rather out there claims of one person regarding business and capitalism. The rights of a consumer go beyond simple purchase/lease. There is an expectation of certain standards that have been held to in the production of whatever is being bought. For example, you have the right to buy a car that conforms to standards set out for safety. You have a right to expect food is 'organic' (whatever the fck that means, and sorry to digress, but since when are tomatoes ever inorganic? I mean, I've been eating stone tomatoes all these years?) if it claims to be. The rights of the consumer are superceded however, by the rights of the corporation. If you're a private business who only answers to you and your private ownership, you have certain flexibilities. Not so in a corporation. You have to maximize profits. If that means cutting corners for safety, you do it, if you calculate the profit is higher doing that (and paying a fine or two) than meeting standards. This right or responsibility for the corporation trumps the consumer's rights... Ralph Nader may be a lot of things, but one of the things that he isn't is anti consumer or marxist. Why it is that requesting government intervention on behalf of people is a dangerous thing, when corporations spend billions to curry favours of the government to produce legislation that only benefits a corporation's bottom line (see your country's recent energy bill for example) is considered a bad thing will forever mystify me. What Nader fights for is what anyone who is a worker rather than a corporate partner should be after also. Putting limits on corporate power that seeks only to collect as much money as it can, without getting caught, at the cost to every single individual as well as society. Sorry for the ramble, but this one is so often misunderstood and blame set everywhere but at the right place, it requires a fairly extensive answer.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 123 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 8/13/2005 9:19:59 PM
Wow...go away for a couple weeks and all this comes pouring out...amazing. First off, thanks to Bucsgirl and Pandy for the lovely words, you two are priceless. Were I to have the power, you'd both have the wind, sun and the seas at your beck and call. Plus, you'd both live closer so we could go for pints sometime. Stone, cheers mate and good luck with the stones thing for September... [Paragraph snipped to be nice. /xander] Gabby and hardly...thanks so much and appreciate the good words... Oh, and Carri...do not banana. Just don't. Friends don't let friends post and banana.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 18 (view)

Principal ordered Bush portrait removed from class Posted: 7/23/2005 9:26:16 AM
Good lord above, it never ceases to amaze me the mountains some folks down in the U.S. want to make from every molehill. Folks...this is one those marvellous 'who gives a sh!t' stories that ought to have about as much time spent worrying about it as you do about whether McDeath is going to come out with a new size of M&M McFlurrie. I mean, I'm no fan of Georgie W., and when it comes right down to it, any educator who is a fan of him or his policies regarding the school system is probably identifying themselves as grossly unsuitable to be teaching your nation's children, but the amount of hand wringing about how much your head of state is evoked by the teacher is a waste of time akin to wondering exactly how much Madonna is involved with global poverty after the Live 8 concert (answer: depends if it will get her publicity or not). Listen. There are important issues going on right now in your country, domestically and abroad. The issue of how much funding is tied to performance of a school in standardized tests is one that is currently on the books and getting revisited every budget. This policy, as one example, is loaded to give more funding to schools that are doing okay (ie. rich white neighbourhood suburban schools) and end up cutting funding to schools that need more support (ie. inner-city schools with predominantly non-white students). If you think the issue of the president's picture and so on in a classroom even comes close to comparing in importance to just this ONE issue, you need to get some remedial studying in yourself. Let's be clear. It is sad to see that a teacher would support a president who supports programs that are not going to benefit the children who need it most. It's sad that you have a president who likely couldn't score higher on the tests taken by the children who stare at his picture in their elementary school classrooms. It's very, very sad. And so this issue ought to be given thought only after the more important ones are dealt with. Which, at the current pace of change in the U.S. should occur sometime in the fall, 2088.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 76 (view)

No sex before marriage Posted: 7/18/2005 10:29:17 PM
I'm all for no sex before marriage, for other people who want to do that. I think it's a fine choice and you go ahead and do what's right for you. Of course, what that means is that you need to decide if that's something you need from your partner. If they need to be a virgin too? Well, you're what? 21? Find 'em quick...the numbers are already dwindling. You're also obviously religious which is fine. For you, and I assume for your presumed partner. But what you should decide has nothing to do with your sexual habits (let's face it, you go more than a couple degrees of separation into evangelical preachers or roman catholic priests and you're so far into sexual deviancy, it makes the groupie clusterf*ck at a G'n'R concert look like the Walton's family reunion show). What you want is a good Christian girl who SAYS she's saved it. (wink wink). Trust me, you won't know, she won't tell ya, and it won't make a difference unless there's some really awkward moment in the local A&P when she bumps into someone who's curious as to what happened since she walked off with those four guys at that amazing beach party with the quarter of hash and the monkey skull bong... Then you date a while...and you two decide if THAT'S what you want to do together...then forever and ever, amen. But you guys just play it by ear and whatever you two decide is just fine. Maybe you two DO want to try 'it' but then just keep it secret (use a rubber). But please remember, you're not sinning. No one goes to hell because they dip their wick. At the worst, they just go to the clinic (use a rubber).

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Online Dating Guide for GALS: Part One Posted: 7/13/2005 8:23:40 PM
Hiya ladies, some of you may have read the Guide for Men). That was the one where there was some, oh, I dunno, general hints and advice on things, based on what I’d heard a few of you women complain about from this place. If you haven’t read 'em, and would like to check them out, they’re here... Part One (where we discuss NOT sending pictures of your willy to women) http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts1226186.aspx Part Deux (pronounced ‘d’uh’ because so many of those guys are suuuuuch morons…ya know?) http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts1254867.aspx And of course, if you feel they’re on the ball, say so, as maybe with more of you agreeing, less of ‘em will insist on, well, thinking that sending pictures of their flesh-stick is the height of romance... Anyway, that’s not what we’re here for today, is it? No. We’re here for the Guide for YOU. Now, first off, it’s a real pleasure writing this one, as in this case, I’m fairly sure most of you are literate, considerate and in possession of common sense. Unlike the, ahem, morons of my gender I directed the other guide to… But you have your foibles too, and while they’re not quite as serious as sending pictures of your genitalia to strangers, there may be a few things here to take away and think about…let’s get to it, shall we? Some basic rules… 1. Don’t want to play ‘games’. Ladies, I think I speak for the vast majority of men out there, when I say… ‘huh?’ It’s not that we don’t feel your pain on this, because it looks like there’s a bloody army of women with an aversion to games that borders on the pathological. It’s just that men don’t understand what you mean by ‘games’. We don’t. Seriously. And don’t try to explain to us, because every time we hear the explanation we tune it out. You don’t want to be ‘played’ or be told how great you are and then have the guy disappear or that you find out you’re not the only gal he’s been calling…I know. We don’t get it. We don’t want to do any of those things either, but the thing is, when you find, yet again, that you’ve been played because he suddenly isn’t the same, or calling, or whatever…it’s not that he thinks he’s playing games. It’s just that things may have changed with him, and he’s not really feeling the same things any more. It’s just as likely, by the way, that he still thinks you're great but his schedule is fcked up, or that he hasn’t really had a chance to get online or call or whatever…but however you slice it. He doesn’t think “ah, now I’m just playing games with her”. Let me reiterate this. You will continue saying ‘no games’ until your keyboard is blue with frustration, and yet it will still happen. Because we don’t understand games and we are not intending to with you or anyone…we're just guys. We don’t communicate well. Hell, we can barely get around to saying “I love you” to our best friend that we’ve hung out with since high school…we’re also the guys, we’re the ones who have to put it on the line and get up the blls to ask you out, or hit on your in the bar. And you gals are more than happy being coy and saying ‘maybe’, or playing all those games while we're pursuing you madly, so just cut us some slack. We don't get it. Never have...never will...not intending games at all (unless pillow fighting with you and your sorority sisters counts as a game, in which case, count us in...) 2. Dancing like no one’s watching. This is a personal thing with me, maybe I’m alone in this, and maybe I’m out in left field. But if I see one more woman assert this, in all seriousness, I’m going to gag, because, like no one’s reading. It’s a nice sentiment. I know. But it’s also more common than farts in a bean factory and c’mon…gals, I’ve SEEN you in the dance bars. You aren’t dancing like no one’s watching, you’re dancing like you KNOW all the guys are watching and you shake your moneymaker enjoying every moment, every stare and every drooling tongue. So, c’mon…stop with that one, okay? For me? 3. Pictures. I’ve seen more than my share of women complaining that guys just assume they’re out to get laid because they’re putting out pictures of some form of sexual nature. Here’s the thing. You’re right. It’s not fair, it’s not right and those guys you’re dealing with sending you obnoxious come-ons because you have a picture of you sticking your tongue out? They are fcking morons. But…they’re guys. They’re going to see a sexual side of things for some pictures. Like… Pictures of tongues out: Men see: Sex. Pictures of bathing suits: Men see: sex. Pictures of sitting on a couch: Men see: sex. Picture of you in a burlap sack, with face cream, curlers while you’re having a dump: Men see: sex. Getting the picture? Guys are looking for any excuse and will send you obnoxious messages regardless. Get over it. Pictures you put up of an alluring nature need to assume to get a fair amount of attention…so just deal and stop complaining. If you don’t like being objectified, don’t put up a picture. And if you’re about to say “but then no one will send me messages” then understand that’s exactly the point. The act of putting up a picture, for guys or gals, in some small way is asking to be objectified. A$$holes you should complain about, but you shouldn’t be surprised. 4. Pictures of that red sunset...you know it. I've seen fifty of 'em here, at least. If we really wanted to see that picture, we could just go to "My Pictures" and then "Sample Pictures" on our computers, and look at it to our hearts content. Or any other ‘cutesy’ picture like the puppy or the ocean or a cartoon character boy and girl holding hands. We don’t look at them. We don’t find them cute. We don’t care. Sorry. Just thought you should know. Pictures of you we look at. Otherwise? Nope…just annoying. 5. “My friends tell me…” That you’d be a great catch. Or you’re attractive. Or a riot. Or whatever. Here’s what I want you to do. I want you to go around and ask one hundred people at random if they have every had a friend tell them “You know, you’d be a fcking disaster to have any romantic relationship with”. Go on, try it and see how many friends do that. Your friends aren’t necessarily lying, mind you, it’s just…well, you get the idea. 6. “I like to laugh”. Now, read rule five. How many folks do you know that have an aversion to laughter? A buddy for whom giggling is seen as a hardship they hope never to have to endure ever again… None? You get the idea. 7. “Looking for something real”. I’ve read this a few times, and it strikes me that there may be a need for a quick review. It’s a VERY common thing that you ladies are looking for, I mean, tons of you are talking about it. My question begins with the number of imaginary people you’ve been dating and how or why this hasn’t been a success for you. There are likely explanations, of course, including the fact they don’t actually exist, but the point is you have found this fictional dating approach to be a bit lacking. So you are interested in something real...to which every man in the world says, "well, what the fck else would you be looking for?" As guys, we are not as emotionally aware of ourselves and the world around us, as a rule. We have a more visceral and literal sense of things. And so, we assume it’s ALL real. You’re looking for real? Guys think that going to the roadside bar with you, pounding back tequilla and beer for four hours before returning to his pickup truck to fck like banshees in the parking lot…is REAL. Because, technically, it is real. Real shallow and exactly NOT what you’re looking for, but if you set the bar at ‘real’ then don’t be too surprised if the man of your "dreams" ain’t found very often. 8. Finally, the last rule for part one of this, although I’m thinking the guys really need a lot more help than you gals do, so maybe we’ll leave it at this… I like smileys. Lots of guys do. Seriously though, when you see that there are more smiley characters in your messages than there are actual letters from the english language…step away from the mouse, and do not put another of those fcking bananas out there. Okay? Well, hopefully that wasn’t too painful…but you see, with you gals it’s so tame in comparision. I mean, we’re not dealing with the fence-post level stupidity the guys show so regularly, it’s just kind of cute stuff that you’re doing for your own reasons but mostly…we just don’t get it. Thought I'd letcha know. Shall we review? We don’t understand what a game is. Dance however you fcking want…just dance for crying out loud. Men will always objectify your pictures, get used to it. That stupid red sunset (you know the one) is annoying the hell out of us…so are the cartoon cute girl and boy kissing…all of that sh!t, stop it. You’re friends aren’t good references (not bad either, just not reliable). Everyone likes to laugh. We’re all real. Enough with the dancing banana already. There? See? A piece of cake. Hopefully, none of you are terribly offended by this, but after doing the guys one, I felt kinda compelled to at least offer another for the gals…

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 46 (view)

I like what my President has done so far (Pro Bush Thread!) Posted: 7/5/2005 11:04:35 PM
Yep, you are right. One of the pitfalls from cutting and pasting. The quote here is what got me...hmmn...thinking... w w w .nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14563 If you scroll down, to a guy named gohon...in February...9 posts down, I think. Hmmmn...the guy that posted, well, the exact same thing...is that you? Post there says he's from Oklahoma, you're profile says North Carolina...so, I'm guessing no. Or maybe here... w w w.calpoly.edu/~doleary/bushaccomplishments.htm Wow, that's a coincidence...word for word... Of course, at least on that link, the guy doesn't pretend their his own thoughts... "Spotted at Rightnation.us and GOPUSA.com reprinted here for your pleasure. " That's how he 'prefaces' it...so as there is no confusion...You know, as if someone might otherwise think it's his own thoughts that are being presented...rather than...well...bull$shit packaged by someone else. Are you cutting and pasting? Just curious. Because, if you want all the pitfalls of cutting and pasting, the tendency for propaganda to be easily spread is one of them, and you're kinda, well, doing that.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 31 (view)

The Morality/ Immorality of feeding and medicating the 3rd world Posted: 7/5/2005 3:21:19 PM
Lol, I love it. What do some peole want to give the starving and dying? Condoms and a secular education. At least you can eat a condom, I guess... In ADDITION to food and medicine, Bully, they'd like to suggest it in ADDITION. You do read, right? The short posts, I mean, no one expects you to slog through the long ones, on account of the risk of tiring out your lips, but at least try reading through the short ones. Education and birth control, in addition to food and medicine are what are needed. Food and medicine are short term things, they help dying people who will starve or die of curable afflictions. That is plugging a damn with your finger in terms of long term affectiveness. For longer term help (in addition to debt relief - the real kind - ) you need a population that is educated and able to provide for itself. You need to teach countries about functional agricultural practices, irrigation systems and other things that can improve their abilities to live on their own. You need to provide them with birth control access and education to help them in what is becoming a runaway train of population density. Start with complaining to your own government about their broken promises regarding debt relief and foreign aid (which Canada is also guity of, as are most first world countries). Then let the experts help short term and long term. And yes, with food, meds, AND condom and education.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 105 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 7/4/2005 10:13:15 PM
:) Well, first off, I'm NOT a fan of that book...but needless to say... Wait until I try the women's guide to online dating...THEN we can start putting the parts together and have a...well, a useless online set of posts that have about as much intrinsic value as the paper they were written on, if you get my drift... But still, it keeps me off the streets...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 6 (view)

The Morality/ Immorality of feeding and medicating the 3rd world Posted: 7/4/2005 8:47:41 PM
Oh, and assuming that the country giving the aid doesn't have a bible thumping christian leader who forbids offering anything that doesn't promote abstinence, you might throw a couple condoms in along with the aspirin and del monte fruit cups...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 20 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part Deux Posted: 7/4/2005 2:52:39 PM
And bless your hearts, ladies, you don't expect much at all... As mentioned, given that men aren't required for procreation any more, and the last time I looked you could find sex toys that look as though they could bring off a f*cking manikin, I'm surprised you gals bother at all... Not that I'm suggesting for an instant that I hope you do stop bothering...I'm just impressed ya don't, is all.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 15 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part Deux Posted: 7/4/2005 4:57:03 AM
Hey folks, just wanted to say thanks to the various responses and babylonia et al...would love to write a book but I think when your target audience for the subject matter are largely unable to read (and likely more busy fiddling with themselves and their web cams) I think that's a business case ready to tank...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part Deux Posted: 7/3/2005 7:35:21 PM
As said in part one, this may seem slightly arrogant, but it has become apparent that some of you guys here have issues with what most of the rest of the world refers to as ‘not having the brains and common sense of a tree stump’. Now, we covered a few of the biggies and not so biggies in part one, the most important being the bit about not deciding that a woman you hardly know might want to have an unsolicited picture of the ‘ole flesh flute’ sent to them. I will say this again…they don’t. It’s not even a ‘well, would an exception to the rule be…’ kind of thing. There are no exceptions. I say this with alacrity and without the slightest hesitation. There has NEVER been a woman who has thought to herself after being on a dating site talking with someone, “hmmn, if only I’d asked to see a picture of his cck…damn, I always forget to do that”. They’ll ask, or they don’t want to see it. Period. Okay, now that we’ve reviewed the salient points of Part One, we’re going to move into Part Deux (For those who don't know, it's French for 'you ignorant English ba$tard'). Now, obviously, some of these are going to rub you the wrong way a bit… But look, one of the biggest surprises I found was the standards for guys being ‘a catch’ has degraded to the following… Smart= Can communicate in sentences. Good looking= Has limbs and digits connected to the anatomically correct part of his body. Independent= A job Considerate= Can listen and respond to someone in a way that is reasonably close to the topic that was being discussed in the first place. Now, I’m shocked this is the bar by which women are forced to measure men these days, but it’s certainly not something I’m complaining about…on the other hand, it’s not a difficult thing to hit at least three of the above mentioned traits and not p!ss off every woman out there. Trust me, the science of artificial insemination combined with the NASA-like engineered sex toys that are now available make a woman’s need for a man tenuous at best… But if nothing else, consider reading this an opportunity to say “that a$$hole knows nothing about chicks…” and move on to your next message to a lovely young lady about all of the subtleties and emotional pitfalls that went into the local funny car competition this afternoon, because hey, THAT’S what chicks really want to hear about… Or read along and maybe as with part one, some of the ladies here will offer some confirmation that might lead you to believe the next time you think about sending that message outlining exactly how many beers you and your buddies managed to shotgun last night, you’ll think twice and just ask her about her. Just a thought, mind you, just a thought. Okay. Here’s the next installment of the rules. We’re not going to do a full ten as with part one, but we will be covering some important topics…so read carefully. Oh, and when I say ‘read’, I mean for those of you in the ‘literate’ segment of the online male population. I’m not sure what the other 80% of you should do at this point..maybe go surf porn? 1. Handling rejection. Now, I should have technically covered this in part one, and there were, I think, three women who mentioned it in the various follow-ups, but here goes. Do not send insulting, angry, and other ‘toddler having a hissy fit because he wasn’t allowed the toy he wanted’ messages to women when you don’t get the ‘I’m all yours, baby’ response you were looking for. There are many reasons not to do this that involve pride, dignity and just a general sense of human decency, but we all know that will be about as effective an argument as suggesting you may NOT be god’s gift to the female species, so I’m not going to try that. What I will do though is offer you a quick psychology lesson in why you’re doing this. Trust me, you don’t realize it (it’s called the unconscious, and no, that’s not just something that happens after you finish shotgunning all those beers) but this is how it works: a) Emotional Transference. This happens when you are angry about something and you release that anger at someone or something unrelated to the source. Most common is the father who has a hard day at work because the boss is a jerk and goes home and yells at the wife and/or kids. In this case though, you’re angry because a woman showed what can best be described as good taste or ‘standards requiring men she’s interested in to have an intellect equal or higher to pond algae’. You’re angry about this, and you decide to call her a b!tch or a whore or a whatever six or seven other standard insults you’ve managed to build into your vocabulary over the past few decades. You don’t think she’s any of those things, of course, because had she shown any interest in you, she would be golden, in your mind. YOU tried to talk to HER, so it’s fairly simple to see through. b) Confirm your mistaken beliefs about your superiority. Otherwise known as ‘no I do not have a small pen!s, she must be insane not to want me’ syndrome. This usually takes the form of ‘you don’t know what you’re missing’ in the message, although it would seem from what I’ve heard you then go and impress upon the person exactly how much they’re missing by acting like an absolute a$$hole. This, as an aside, is kind of like a doctor handing out business cards at his patient’s funeral. You see, you aren’t really convincing anyone of how much they’re missing while you rant and rave about what an incredibly stuck-up, stupid, trashy or (fill in the blank) she is for not seeing your true colours. She is seeing your true colours, that’s why she wants nothing to fcking do with you. It’s not like she’s reading that and going ‘whoops…looks like I just let a real catch slip through my digital fingers’. She’s thinking, ‘well, that’s a lot of time and energy I just saved by NOT having to get the restraining order paper-work filled out.’ c) The ‘Your mother wears army boots’ strategy. Children or guys with an IQ approaching that of a newt will often employ this kind of communication strategy when faced with disappointment or upset. In the sandbox, the child will simply insult a child at random because they aren’t getting to play the way they want to. This is done because the child is not yet at an emotionally developed state where they understand the principle behind conflicting goals and the essential differences between different people. In other words, if the other children don’t want to do what they want to do, the other children are bad. With men on dating sites, this is done because the man is about as emotionally and intellectually developed as…no, you thought I was going to say ‘as the child’ right? No. It’s because the man is about as emotionally and intellectually developed as the sandbox. Guys, you may think that hurling insults is a good way to feel better about yourself or to punish said woman for not seeing you as you see yourself…but you would be the only person thinking that (and you would be wrong). So, to review this brief psychology lesson, being politely rejected or even ignored is going to happen…but sending insults towards those who do so classify you as either a child or someone who is making up for a great deal of self-doubt and, very likely, a great number of issues of sexual inadequacy. That’s all…truth be told, if you want to impress a woman and show them what they’re possibly missing, sending a quick ‘Sorry to have bothered you, good luck and no hard feelings” will do MUCH more for making her think twice (actually that’s a lie, but if it convinces you enough to stop with the insulting messages, I’m willing to live with that). 2. Calling her a whore/slut/whatever due to her boob shot. Now, I have heard this from a few ladies, where because they put up a shot of their cleavage or chest, or their a$$ or whatever else, they end up receiving a number of messages from guys referring to them as cheap, easy, or some combination therein. Now, guys, if this is being done because you originally sent them a message saying “nice tits!” or ‘wanna fck?” or even a reasonably polite hello and were still rejected you need to either read the above rule number one or part one of the guide. However, if you’re just sending these messages with no prior interaction, this rule is for you. Stop. I mean it. First off, it’s not a signal that they’re gonna bang every guy who comes knockin’ on their digital door. Trust me, if you’re a woman and you have what could be described as even a reasonably well-endowed chest area (which for 99% of guys means larger than walnuts) then they’re constantly inundated with men staring at them in the real world. Seriously, there are statistics that show more than 80% of women are relatively sure men believe a woman’s eyes are located on their nipples. It’s that bad. So you can hardly blame some for saying, “well, hell, this ought to get a few guys’ attention”. Women do this because they know for the most part men make Pavlov’s drooling dog look like a free thinker. Boobs. Drool. It’s automatonic in nature. So, cut them some slack and if you think that women should not use their sexuality as a tool to get ahead in this world, let them and I know when women are given the opportunity to get ahead on the basis of their abilities and with equal chances to vault past that glass ceiling…then maybe we’ll talk, okay? 3. Complaints about why “girls” don’t go for “nice guys” and instead are going for “jerks/a$$holes/whatever”. I’ve seen these posts a few times, and I’m going to do a quick translation of what we’re dealing with …okay? Sentence posted: “Why do women always insist on going for jerks, instead of the nice guys who would treat them with the kind of respect they deserve…” Translation: “Why won’t –some girl – go out with me? Why is she going out with another guy that I’m SURE is a big, fat, poopy loser that I hate…” Now, I know and you know, fellas, a lot of women go for the dangerous type…the ones with the ‘edge’ and yes, they’re a bit silly for doing so. But that’s for the women’s guide and we’ll discuss that with them a bit later…for now, you guys just have to realize first off…it’s reality. Some gals will do that. And secondly? They’re probably not in this case. They’re probably going for someone they think is just lovely, thank you, and the issue is more the fact it’s not you. Get over it. Because, truly, it doesn’t sound like you’re a nice guy when you post those things…it sounds like, well, you’re just bitter. Oh, and while we’re at it. Let’s be clear on the definitions, because while I’m sure YOU are a nice guy (you haven’t been sending any pictures of your d!ck and you’re not sending mean messages…right?) and I’m sure the guy in question she’s actually with is a TOTAL horror…be clear on the very subtle differences for women. Nice guy: Generally treats women as he would men, with respect and values them for who they are and what they bring to the table…is himself, speaks up for what he feels is right, and listens. For those he is involved with romantically, basically is the same guy but is also great in the sack. If you’re good at oral, you just graduated from ‘nice’, to ‘oh, good lord, thank you’. Door mat: Not the above. Might have had a spine at one time, no evidence of this though currently. Agrees with EVERYTHING the woman says. Asks to do EVERYTHING for the woman. Has about as much of his own self to offer, well, as anyone else, I suppose, but how could you tell, since it’s never shown. If you’re good at oral, you graduated from ‘door mat’ to ‘Oh, good lord, why did he have to be a door mat?’ 4. Fake pictures. This is obviously an issue for both the gals and the guys, but fellas, here’s the thing. We generally don’t mind the fake pictures girls put up because they’re usually eye candy of the ‘won the genetic lottery’ sort. As our more guttural instincts take over, we can just sorta ‘enjoy the view’…women too, but understand they will NEVER meet you, or talk to you, or have anything to do with you if you’re putting up fake pictures (which means, you must put one up with you in a ‘normal’ situation, not in a suit, looking mysteriously off into the distance, with a photo quality that is OBVIOUSLY a bit more advanced than ‘point and click’…c’mon…) If you actually just want to offer up the social charity of ‘here’s a beautiful guy to stare at, enjoy’ and leave it at that, then fine, just don’t then try to contact anyone and see about getting a conversation going. And really quickly, because I personally don’t mind fake pictures and I think most people just consider them a good filter for people they don’t want to meet, some pointers. You will never meet in person. If you do, through some odd chance where they didn’t realize it was a fake pictures (95% of the time, it’s pretty obvious), then the moment that the woman sees you, she will leave (likely running). You will not get a chance to win her over with your personality. Promise. If you think that you’re THAT ugly that someone else’s picture is necessary to break the ice and from which point your charm and personality shall win the day…you need to step away from the computer, walk to the mirror and say the following to your image: “No more communicating with people until I resolve my self-esteem issues, or find a drive-thru cosmetic surgery outlet.” 5. Just be friends. God, guys, are you serious? You actually believe they will buy “I just want to be friends”? Do YOU buy that? No, you don’t. What you want is an opportunity to have a degree of proximity so that, over time, you shall win her heart and you shall ride off into the sunset together. Seriously, I know you’ve convinced yourself that it’s not like that…but it is. She knows this, and it’s not going to work. When the guy keeps trying, and trying and then finally wins out in the end…it’s called a ‘Romantic Comedy’ and you only find examples of it in the theatre or Blockbuster Video store. In real life, it’s called stalking. 6. The laundry list of your attributes. First off…can we please recognize after you list more than, say, three or four, you’re not going to be sounding like much more than a bit of a braggart. Secondly, if you think you’re nice, and smart, and funny, and affectionate…you’ve just described every woman’s dream man. Why not throw in ‘super million bazillionaire’, ‘loves to clean house and cook’ and ‘Olympic level skills at oral sex” while you’re at it? You’re NOT every woman’s dream man. So, you may think you’re all of those things, but likely, you’re not THAT smart…or maybe you overestimate the innate humour in fart jokes…I don’t know, but I do know that if every guy who claimed he was those four things actually was…well, the share price for every dating site company would make Microsoft look like a penny stock. Also, the laundry list…guys. Please. Limit the numbers…I’ve seen everything from claims of Nobel prize worthy intellect to ‘particle physics is a hobby’ to ‘have been known to practice medicine in third world countries while on a layover from my carrier as a commercial airline pilot’. Um…ease up, fellas, it’s kinda hard to believe you’re THAT amazing. In the event you are, surprise ‘em with those things on the first date… 7. This is not a competition. You aren’t out to ‘win’ a gal. They’re not prizes, they don’t have a price on them and they’re not a trophy. This last rule came up in part one, and it bears mention. You see, many women like being pursued, as do men. But the ultimate choice in this, lies with the gal (so in other words, you could win the race, and she can chose the cute guy who came in fourth). Don’t do things you wouldn’t normally, don’t try THAT hard to ‘win’ over the young lady’s affections, for chr!ssakes, how do you think she’ll feel when she finds out you’re actually nothing like that and were doing it more to ‘win’ the ‘prize’ (typically, when women are made to be felt as though they’re a product to be bartered, traded and won, they have a slightly iffy response…if you insist on doing this, do not do so within kicking distance or without wearing a jock-strap and cup. You’ve been warned). There, now those weren’t so bad, were they? Just little things, a suggestion here, a little bit of advice there, and it’s all good. Reviewing, briefly…don’t advertise yourself as a child when you get rejected, don’t complain about women who are using a suggestive picture to get a guy’s attention, don’t worry about why nice guys (you) aren’t getting this or that gal, fake pictures are fine if you never want to actually talk to someone on the site, you don’t just want to be friends…she knows this, careful with exactly how many ‘traits’ you feel it necessary to advertise your skills in and remember, you’re not after a trophy or a ribbon, you’re looking for someone who just gets you and you get them, which needs to happen without you busting your blls impressing here with things you aren’t. Now, off you go, and play nice. I’m thinking the ladies have to have a guide done for them too, as an aside…because, for example, while I think it’s a nice sentiment, if I read “dance like no one’s watching” one more time, I’m gonna have a conniption.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 45 (view)

Is there such a thing as The One ? Posted: 7/3/2005 3:17:17 PM
I have a theory, and it could be called 'the 3% rule'...works something like this. Anyone generally will have, on average, about three percent of the population that they REALLY hit it off with. There may be many more (20%? 30%?) that they get along with okay, can date, etc...but only 3 in a 100 will be a 'WOW' kind of thing, as far as a relationship thing goes (physically, emotionally, intellectually etc.). It also isn't obvious right at the get go, usually...you have to get to know them a bit. Now, it might seem this is as easy as meeting enough people and you finally found it, but it works both ways...the person you find who's in that rare 3% ALSO needs to see you as one of their 3%...when that happens, it's one of those 'WOW' relationships. For the mathmatically inclined, the numbers boil down to... .03 X .03 = .0009 Or, approximately 9 in 10,000 people you will have that 'thing' with...but let's round up, and say it's .001 or one in a thousand. One of every 1,000 new potential 'matches' you meet...And that's assuming the 3% thing is right, in the event it's 2%...the numbers change and it's 4 in 10,000 or 1 in every 2,500 people that you meet... So, no, not 'the one' but number crunching...it's a fair number of folks you have to meet before you happen across the one that actually 'wows' you and you them. Course that's just my own little theory...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 85 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 7/3/2005 10:05:01 AM
Aw thanks Bucs, and bus and stone... No hate mail received...actually, not much in the way of any mail regarding it, but hey, that's okay...Pandy and the hollies, but tis more about the message than the messenger, so that's not a problem... Oh, and bus...love ya too, baby, absolutely nothing wrong with that at all... Footnote: The use of the term 'baby', while not necessarily a good or bad thing directed at women, is a bit risky if there is not at least a reasonable familiarity with the woman in question. When a guy refers to another guy as 'baby', however, it's just fine...assuming of course they're both comfortable in their own sexuality and don't get all weirded out. 'Weirded out' and blatant homophobia will be covered in the subsequent parts of the guide, hopefully. Needless to say, fellas, get over it. Here's the thing, many women have a gay friend who they talk to about every single aspect of their personal lives...you better just be okay with it if you're gonna want to make points. Oh, and for the record, he's not going to hit on you, you f*cking moron. If gay men wanted to get in the pants of every brain-dead, homophobic yahoo they met, they would go to more monster truck rallies. They're not. They don't. Deal.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 81 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 7/3/2005 8:14:13 AM
Woody you may want to add to your next dating guide... Wow, that was lovely to read the various new posts and thanks folks... Yup, there looks to be a definite need for the guide part deux...and I think perhaps even a shot at the guide for gals... Themes for the part two seem to be coming along nicely... although I think special mention needs to be made to the idea of listing the various qualities that a guy thinks he has. I've seen ones where they're listing nearly 50 of the f*cking things, from 'kind' to 'have a certificate in the sheep shearing arts'...and you know, fellas, I'm pretty sure you can just put 'nice' and be done with it...I mean, I'm not saying you are or you aren't all those things, but technically, if you WERE all those things, you'd be on Oprah for chr!ssakes. Oh, and don't put 'sensitive' and 'sex' in your interests. Well, don't put 'sex' period (as mentioned before), but certainly don't put the two of 'em next to each other...it's like putting 'Animal lover' and 'pig roasts' in your interests, the two sound at least at first glance, as if they're mutually exclusive... Anyway, thanks for the good words and remember, lads...no sending pictures of your schlong.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 68 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 7/2/2005 9:20:39 AM
Aw, Pandy, thanks, but of course, I don't mind where this ends up...it just feeds my pathological desire for grandstanding and desperate attempts to make myself look good... And Hollies... glad to be of service...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 64 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 7/2/2005 9:06:20 AM
Well, as it seems this has been moved... First off, having tons of fun reading through all of these posts and am determined to get Part II of the rules out ASAP... But, back to what's on the plate at the moment...holly...here's what I can imagine would be the automatic reply... Hello, My deepest and most sincere apologies for this, a short reply to your expansive and wonderful message outlining the feelings you have for me. Unfortunately, I must decline. I have a very strict rule for this sort of thing, which goes as follows...If I decide I would probably prefer to stay at home and jam a pencil in my eye rather than meet someone from this site, I have promised myself I will do neither. I have read your message carefully, and believe that we are likely to be about as compatible as a Victoria Secret super model and a snail. Please understand, that this is not to say you won't have many women happy to 'give you the needed cooperation' required to spend actual time in the same room with you without screaming or needing massive doses of medication. I would look for 'interests' matching the following keywords: "oddball", "disturbed and possibly deranged" and "Illiterate but tries hard nevertheless". Take care, and good luck with what I can only imagine is a search to find a lady who is about to become one of the all-time unluckiest people on this planet. Sincerely, XXXXXXXX

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 47 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 7/1/2005 2:11:21 PM
I love how you condesend in your posts because you don't have the ability to carry on a fair view. I stand by my post because I am a free-thinker. Oh, sheesh, big guy...seriously, I wasn't picking on you, lighten up...but given that you wish to get into the nitty gritty... 1. It's condescend. 2. My sense is that in your case, free thought might be more an indication of the inherent value of the thinking, rather than a flexibility in perspective. Now, before you get your cans out again...just relax. Oh, and thanks Pandy, I'll be over with application ASAP...:)

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 42 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 7/1/2005 12:56:56 PM
"loser" oh heck no you didn't!!! lol now u made me open up my can of whoopass lol Well, technically, no, I didn't...put your can away...:) No nerve was struck...and yes, focussed on men because, by and large (as you may notice from the various ladies present) it happens. And I'm not trying to be altruistic, just having a laugh or two, so ease yourself off of that high horse...everything will be just fine. I'll say this again...not trying to impress anyone, sweetcheeks, it's just a laugh. As an aside, I'm not doing this to belittle 'men'. I'm doing this to belittle 'morons'. Yes, it's a little like shooting fish in a barrel (subtle double entendre in relation to this site's name only slightly intended) but you just have to take a step back...and relax. Oh, and men bashing? Come on...we've been the predominant and powerful figure in human society for eons and eons and now in the last few years a few ladies are taking a couple shots back at us and you've had enough? Get over it and while doing so find a slightly thicker skin. Oh, and I'm sorry to hear about your outlook on life. My job isn't a competition, it's a career that I actually enjoy and do well for no other reason than because I can and I want to. Same with sports...I like to win, but I don't like to win at any cost. Love as a competition? I'd hate to think so, but again, this is more about how you see life rather than how life really is... Now, go 'win' yourself a lady, big guy...the crowd waits in anticipation and the trophy needs plucking from high atop its pedestal. On your mark... Get set... DATE!

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 39 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 7/1/2005 12:01:56 PM
Pandy, you just tell me where to send the application...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 23 (view)

Deck the Holls Posted: 7/1/2005 11:16:12 AM
Um, can I ask... A stutter wouldn't be a good thing to develop... But I'm thinking a "studder" wouldn't be so bad, depending on the context...:)

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 34 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 7/1/2005 11:14:32 AM
Hiya countrylin and Jenza, thanks ... But just for the record...Bowvalley was more like a pet, than an enemy...ya know?

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 14 (view)

Deck the Holls Posted: 7/1/2005 11:03:15 AM
May I just say how honoured I am to have had anything to do with the idea behind such a fantastic thread... I've never been good at the pickup lines, and haven't really got any...generally speaking, though, if you send someone a message saying hello, would it be okay to chat sometime between the hours of 4-6pm because that's when the North York Institute for the Chronically Bewildered's free time is scheduled and the medication has usually worn off by then... Bad? Good?

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 30 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 7/1/2005 10:57:51 AM
I don't see why your helping your competition by giving them pointers on how to meet women. Just seems like an ulterior motive of grand standing to look better yourself in a thread Ah, this is for the follow-up, part two of the rules, I think...the idea that approaching meeting people as a 'competition'...and how guys ought to realize that as you treat women as a prize to be won, you are more than likely to be thought of as a loser before you begin, but that's for another post and another time... Generally speaking though, and thanks frrrosty and hac (and mike too)...nope. Ulterior motive was to provide a laugh or two. Oh, shoot, there was another ulterior motive as well...sorry, totally forgot. I wanted to use the phrase 'meat pole' in a post. Don't know why, but it just tickled my fancy, for reasons I can't explain...

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 5 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 6/30/2005 11:56:14 PM
Aw Pandy, babe, I've always wished we chatted more...and thanks for reading the 'guide'. :) Howdy Holly...bless your heart...it was fun writing this...I'm gonna thank you for being one of those inspirations to realizing 'sheesh...guys REALLY need to get this..." And Fates? Yeah, they do...sigh. Cheers.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One Posted: 6/30/2005 10:45:11 PM
The Rules: A Guide For Men - Part I You know, maybe you guys will think this arrogant, but I gotta tell ya, now and again I talk to a gal here, and it seems there needs to be a clearing of the air. Some rules…basic ‘do’s’ and ‘do nots’ that you can use as a little guide. So, as a public service, I thought I’d write a few down. Now, trust me, I am pretty well certain that 95% of women here will agree with 95% of the rules. Not a bad stat, huh? Ladies, if you’re in agreement, please back me up on these…I don’t think I’m really reaching here, from what I’ve heard. Oh, and this is just a first kick at the can, so to speak. I’ll try to come up with follow-ups as needed. The Rules: 1. Sending pictures of your cck to gals on the site. I debated whether or not I should work up to this rule with a few minor ones, you know, kind of like a warm-up to the main event, but the fact is that there are simply too many of you guys deciding that a glossy, close-up of your meat-pole is one of those time honoured flagships of courtship. It ain’t. In case I’m being a little vague, let me rephrase that. Chicks don’t want you sending them pictures of your willy. They just don’t. I promise. Trust me, as enamoured as you might be with the sight of your little putz, the vast majority of women are not, and here’s the thing. It may be that there are a few women that really DO want to see grainy, web-cam photos of the male member, from random samples that the gender has to offer. These women have this cool thing called “google” and if they go to the image area and type in “Morons and their schlongs” they can find all the pictures of guys like you that they could ever want. Seriously. Check the interests in the site and look for how many women have put “uninvited d!ck shots” in there. Found any? There’s a reason. Okay, now we’ve got past the big one, fellas, and now we’re going to go on some minor rules. These are not, by any means 100% certain, but I’m betting you will do well to at least give ‘em a try. Still reading? For the probably 40-50% of you who are functionally illiterate (trust me, I’m basing this on anecdotal evidence from females on this site, that’s a pretty good estimate) and have a ‘spotter’ reading for you, make sure they’re reading slowly. 2. Pull back on the relationship throttle and ease off the commitment buttons…You’ve talked to someone a couple of times on line, maybe even managed to beg or extort a woman into actually meeting you for coffee…or have her on the phone after a week or so…don’t go suggesting you love them, or want to move in together or for chr!ssakes, want to get married.. Women have a word for that type of clingy, over the top, needy type. It’s called…’weirdo’. You see, at this point, she knows you approximately as well as she does the guy who sits four seats ahead of her on the bus most days as she commutes to work, and even if you are certain that she is Cleopatra to your Mark Anthony (note to spotters: explain this is a historical reference and just means that you really dig the chick)…she isn’t. You’re gonna freak her out. If you want to marry her after talking for two weeks…it means you should wait 2 years before you propose. Seriously. If you want to marry her after talking for one week…you should wait 20 years. 3. Pictures of you flexing half naked. Two words. Independent editor. Some of you guys have a six pack down there that anyone would want to see…hell, I would want to see…but most of you? It’s nothing special. So, before you flash that pic of you doing your Hulk imitation in your boxers and not much else, do the ladies a favour and ask a trusted confidante “is this a particularly attractive midriff?” because unless they say, ‘fck yeah’ you’re advertising you are vain about a body part you have no business in being vain about. Tee shirt. Trust me. 4. Your occupation. Don’t put down that you’re a spy. Just don’t. Don’t leave it blank and at the first conversation make strange hints that you can’t talk about your job…and then tell her, in confidence, that you’re really an agent with the CIA, FBI or NSA. Here’s why. Guys think that’s cool…it’s like playing cowboys and indians or something…you’re a boy, and you are attracted to the idea of pretending you’re a big, mysterious, super-spy international agent. Women? They think “Fck, this means he’ll probably be working a lot of weekends.” And in the event that you two DO hit it off and walk off into the sunset…yeah, she’s thinking “I’m getting stuck with most of the diaper duties and all the times the kids wake up in the night”. You see, that’s a boy’s fantasy for a job. You want to impress a woman with a lie about your work? Tell her you’re a chef or an extremely well paid housecleaner (and that you LOVE your work). Oh, and I wouldn’t mention this rule unless I had heard about it actually happening…don’t put your occupation as ‘model’ with an obviously pro picture lifted from any magazine site and THEN tell them you ‘moonlight for the FBI’. First off, FBI agents don’t have second jobs in a business that will have their faces postered everywhere. Secondly, they don’t blow their cover on online dating sites. 5. I know, I know…the profile is meant to give you an opportunity to describe yourself and you want to tell ‘em how smart you are. You should. It’s a good idea. But please…it is spelled “Intelligent”. Not…”intellegent”. I mention this because the first time I saw it, I chalked it up to chance…the second time an odd coincidence and the third…a very disturbing trend. Listen, I know, typos are part of the online reality, and I give ‘em as much slack as anyone, but on THIS …well, it’s kind of important, if you are saying you’re intelligent, to at least be able to prove this by spelling the word correctly. If it’s too hard to remember, just say you’re “smart”. It’s easier to spell. As an aside, it’s easier if you just show them you’re smart, rather than say you are and then explain you’re sensitive and looking for that special someone by listing your interests as “beer, cars and sex”. Oh, and also, if you’re saying you’re funny…be funny…if you’re ‘into readin’ (and yes, I’ve seen it put that way), list some of the books you’ve recently read…even if they are picture books and even if you aren’t sure if that makes you sound dorky (it doesn’t). Reading was considered ‘dorky’ my cute girls in grade four, and while that’s the reading level many of you guys are still struggling with, most girls aren’t going to think less of you because you say you love reading John Irving. 6. If you are older than 19. The letter ‘z’ is not used, generally speaking, to pluralize words. Don’t do that. For those of you who are 18 years old and believe that this rule does not apply to you, I meant 19 months. 7. I know I’ve mentioned no cck shots. Just wanted to reiterate. Don’t. 8. Women who list ‘sex’ in their interests do not mean ‘sex with you’ or ‘sex with every jag off who messages me’ or ‘I’m easy’. Men who list ‘sex’ in their interests are wasting their time. Women are all assuming we are interested in that. Unless you list Catholic Priest as an occupation, but given what I’ve been reading in the news, even that’s no guarantee. 9. Women couldn’t give a sh!t how much you bench press…how many beers you drank last weekend…what you plan to fix on your car/ATV/lawnmower this weekend…or why your softball team didn’t win the game last night. Seriously. They don’t. You’re intellegent…think of something ELSE to talk about. 10. If you actually like something a girl said in her profile…or if her picture really caught your eye…do not send her a message that starts with or solely consists of “Hey baby”, or “You sexy”, and I can’t actually believe I’m having to say this but anecdotal evidence sometimes speaks volumes…”wanna fck?” Try out ‘Hi, I just wanted to say hello, and let you know I really enjoyed your profile” or “I’m and wanted to see if you’d mind talking sometime” or “I read the rules, and I promise no cck shots and no marriage proposals…but how about talking?” Trust me. It takes about twenty seconds more and makes a HUGE difference. Oh, and while we’re at it, if you just send messages to hundreds of women at a time and are actually typing out ‘hey baby’ to all of them…save yourself the time, it’s called ‘cut and paste’ you fcking moron. There. Ten quick rules…none of them seem that arduous, and if you’re a guy sitting there and thinking “well, d’uh…”, that’s fine…it’s not about you. But you’d be surprised… I know more than a few women here will attest to the fact that if every guy followed the above rules, their experiences would be a lot more positive…so we’re sort of clearing the air. Remember…if a woman wants to see a picture of your d!ck, she’ll ask. If she wants to move in with you, she’ll mention at least that she hates living alone. You’re probably NOT as cut as you think you are. Boys think playing ‘spy’ is cool…girls don’t. Intelligent is spelled with an ‘I’ to start and another ‘i’ is hidden in the middle. You’re not into ‘carz’ or drinking a ton of ‘beerz’ this weekend. Cars. Beers. Even if you CAN spell it right, don’t talk about cars or beers or bench pressing or your softball team…and they know you like sex. Promise. “Hey baby” is not a message, it’s the digital equivalent of honking your horn at a girl walking along the street. And put your web cam away and your d!ck in your pants, because it’s not impressing anyone. * When I said I meant you should substitute in your actual name there…you moron.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 12 (view)

stem cells vs the death pealty Posted: 5/25/2005 8:49:39 PM
First off, Hiya Bully...long time no type... President Bush's stem cell stand (ah, gotta love alliteration) makes the most useful and promising form of research (embryonic) essentially banned. Adult stem cells, contrary to the Christian propaganda, do not show the same potential for nearly unlimited forms of development. And the benefits for stem cell research are wide...altzheimers, spinal injuries, all manner of cancer therapies... And scientists need access to embryonic stem cells to continue this work... And the Christian lobby argues that two cells are a human life. And Bush choses? Well, for this scientific issue he sided with the group that would prefer that evolution was banned from schools. The feds won't fund research on any stem cell line from after 2001...and there are big problems from this...here's a quote from Harvard University's stem cell lab folks... "Under administration policy, only stem cell lines created before August 9, 2001 can be studied using federal funds. Although it was originally claimed that more than 60 lines would meet this eligibility criterion, most researchers in the field consider this to be an overestimate. NIH currently lists only 22 lines that are available for distribution to researchers. These federally approved lines are limited in their utility for a variety of reasons, including lack of genetic diversity, chromosomal abnormalities, poor growth characteristics, exposure to - and potential contamination by - mouse feeder cells, and commercial restrictions. " In other words, it's useless. Thankfully, world class research facilities outside of the U.S. are pursuing this research, and all that the U.S. will do is give someone other than American organizations the proprietary rights and patents to new medical breakthroughs that will save millions of lives - including a fair number of American religious evangelicals, who, while certainly against this terrible, murder of cells (the numbers of skin cells murdered by the act of thumping your bible is actually considerably higher, but I digress) will be happy to benefit from it when the treatments for all manner of diseases actually makes it into the public sphere. For and overview of stem cell research, check out harvard's stuff... h t t p : // stemcell.harvard.edu/public/faq.php#difference

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 21 (view)

bad boys Posted: 5/23/2005 3:05:31 PM
Hmmn, this seems to be one of those 'age old' questions...but I've noticed a couple things... 1. If the question is asked by a guy. Usually, this isn't a 'why do girls go for the bad guys' question but is a roundabout one asking "hey, I like this girl, was really nice to her and she went for someone that I think is a pr!ck". And in this case, the problem isn't the other guy, but the fact that the girl in question just wasn't interested (not because the guy was nice, or whatever, just not into 'em for thousands of possible reasons) Most guys, whether they know it or not, have played the 'bad guy' role at sometime. But while there are guys out there who are essentially jerks, this isn't the issue when the guy is asking. There's a difference between being 'nice' and being a carpet to walk over. As unappealing as a jerk can be, so too can a guy who's basically giving off this vibe of 'whatever and however and whenever I can be of service to you ma'am, I'm happy to comply...' Which is attractive if you're shopping for a butler. Not so much when you're shopping for someone to share time with and hopefully interact as equals. As an aside, I've played both the jerk and the super nice guy in my time. Both personas are about equally likely to end up in a happy coupling... 2. If the question is asked by the girl. I've noticed in this case, it's often a girl who feels as though they've been entirely used, or treated terribly, by another 'a$$hole', once again, and is rhetorically asking why they do it. In this case, often it's a pattern (either going back to the same jerk or finding a string of them). In this case, I dunno, I'm guessing, but maybe self-esteem issues? There is a 'base attraction' to the dangerous, James Dean-type, but most women know this for what it is...just an infatuation. I sense the difference here is that some women fool themselves into thinking that the 'dangerous' guy (substitute 'jerk' for 'dangerous) can be changed...tamed ...which is what leads to the problem. As an aside, there are plenty of very nice women who wonder why the guys seem to go for the other 'b!tch' types. I could imagine the same principles can be applied as above. Finally, if you're wondering why 'nice' girls go for jerks (and assumingly not for you, instead) then perhaps the issue is whether this girl in question is really that nice. After all, if there's going to be something between two people, you ought not have to 'convince', 'sell' or 'coax' them into finding out why you're better than guy X, Y, or Z. Just two canadian cents though...take 'em for what they're worth.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 116 (view)

ethnic/racial based intiatives promoting racism? Posted: 5/7/2005 8:16:46 AM
Okay Avatar et al...who feel that the 'battle is over' and that any race based help, or minority based assistance from the government constitutes a sort of reverse-racism. The fact is that through economic disadvantage (that has some historical roots) and indirect racism (employers who take resumes with foreign sounding names and put them in a different pile) there exists a culture of subtle advantage for certain groups. Also, when you look at the group as a whole (let's say 'black', as that's traditionally been the target for these debates) the reality is that looking at the 'whole' there are obviously gaps in average earning, socio-economic status, opportunity. These are facts of a culture that technically forbids racism, but yet has not managed to root it out of it's 'inner workings'. This does NOT mean that the U.S. (or Canada which has some similar issues) is a country of racists. It means that the process to actually institute equality has worked at the legislative level but has not fully taken hold in the society itself. And this brings to mind the idea of 'EVERYONE' needs to have an equal chance to get to the finish line. Because while there is a point to the white male who says "Hey, why should I have to battle for a university spot in medicine for grades PLUS my colour?", it forgets that there are two measures to an equal race to the finish line. Is the finish line at the same place for everyone? BUT also, is the start line the same too? Now the white male may think the finish line has been adjusted to help the black student get a spot in the medicine program, but what he doesn't realize is that the starting line for that black student may very well have been much further back than his own. To just get to the point where he was able to apply for a scholarship, the black student needed to go through a lot more (working 25 hours a week to help mum pay rent etc...). Unless everyone lines up at the same starting line, then the race isn't fair no matter what the finish line is. And this is the goal of some of these programs, to bring the starting lines closer together. Ethnic or minority based funding is necessary to take the reality of a legislative reality and bring in enough actual cultural/societal supports to make that reality in the real world too. If you believe white, anglo saxon males have no more or less benefits, as a group, than any other, take a quick poll of the CEOs and VPs in fortune 500 countries. Ask if that's representative of the nation. Take a poll of politicians...of the judiciary...You will find the HUGE number of white anglo saxon males in there, and then ask yourself...well, why? Does this mean that some of the non-racist, deserving white males will not get what they would have otherwise (without minority programs)? Yes, of course, this is a zero sum game and if one position is given to a minority group because of whatever program, then yes, the likely thing is that there is going to be some white male who doesn't get in. But, that's something that has happened the other way for decades, and it's a bit like sour grapes to complain the first time it starts so the tables are turned. Now, to play devil's advocate. I must say the responsibility of the populations in question must be taken equally. There's nothing so silly, to my ears, than the defeatest 'woe is me' routine taken by some when complaining about how they're unable to get ahead. Bill Cosby's town hall tours, where he has basically taken the black, urban population to task for what he calls a failure to take responsibility, is both on the ball and overdue. Cosby, essentially, has pointed out that when parents are speaking in a manner that is basically ghetto-gang talk, and who do NOT insist they're children dress, act and speak in a way that is considered acceptable in mainstream business America, that their failures are in a large part their own fault. It is not racism, for example, when an employer refuses to hire someone who walks in with a bandana, baggy jeans, gold chains and says 'yo, wassup' as a hello. That's called business sense. But to suggest the problems are over and there is no need for assisting historically put upon peoples actually get to the same starting line as everyone else, is a bit 'pie in the sky'. We've come a long way...but there is also a long way to go.

woodrow9876

Joined: 12/29/2004

Msg: 26 (view)

Demise of the Democratic Party Posted: 5/6/2005 9:35:52 AM
The demise? Or just the homogenization of American politics? Because, if there's one thing that seems evident over the past two elections, it's the lack of difference, at base policy level, from both parties. Perhaps this is because the Democrats feel their best chance at winning is to be Republican-lite or perhaps it's because the true measure of the American electorate is a group that truly espouses those beliefs, but more and more...they're the same. George W. Kerry? John Bush? The problem with the American political machine seems that there are two official parties that have become so similar to each other that the process of deciding which one to vote for lies more with image than with substance of political choices. With such incestuously similar basics, and the fact that you have much of the middle occupied by both parties in terms of policy, then the final decision is made based on either the extreme positions of both (Evangelical Right...versus Greenpeace/socialist left) OR it's made on an appearance. Let's be frank, this is how many Americans vote...how the guy "looks"...and the 'look' is such a false, marketed and focus-group tested mask that it's got little or nothing to do with the candidates themselves. And the population of the U.S. willing to do the research, to think through and past the 'campaign lies' to get to what the consequences of each party's positions are? I'm thinking it MIGHT be 10% of voters. Maybe. Democrat or Republican, it's hardly an issue any more...John Kerry could have been a moderate republican in elections past and John McCain at least could have been a conservative Democrat. The real problem lies in an electorate that allows it's only two choices to become so impossibly muddied and homogenous. And that same electorate is too lazy or ignorant, in massive numbers, to do the work required to understand the issues and vote on them from a position of understanding, rather on whether the candidate "looks like he could lead a country".

Show ALL Forums